Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=536694 --- Comment #22 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-01-03 12:08:50 EDT --- (In reply to comment #21) > Quick questions while preparing 4.23: > > 1. <quote>"perl(Locale::gettext)" is automatically detected</quote> > > Not arguing - but the actual module is perl-gettext. - The rpm name "perl-gettext" is based on the tarball name this binary rpm is created from. i.e. the name "perl-gettext" is named so just because this binary rpm is based on "gettext-%{version}.tar.gz" and this rpm's name does not exactly correspond to the module name this binary rpm actually provides. The virtual provides "Provides: perl(Locale::gettext)" is added by rpmbuild automatically because this binary has "Locale/gettext.pm" which contains "package Locale::gettext;". So this rpm (perl-gettext) actually provides the module perl(Locale::gettext), not perl(gettext), and the module name clamtk actually needs is perl(Locale::gettext), not perl(gettext), as shown in %_bindir/clamtk --------------------------------------------------- 26 use Locale::gettext; --------------------------------------------------- > I took this to be > something different since perl-Locale-gettext does not exist. If you are sure > it is the same thing (or, at least, that it will still pull in the right > requirement), then I will remove it as a requirement. - See above > Since perl-libwww-perl (or perl(libwww-perl)) does not show up after running > the command "rpm -qv --requires clamtk", I will keep it in as a requirement. - Here the module clamtk actually needs is "perl(LWP::UserAgent)", not "perl(libwww-perl)" or so, as shown in ClamTk/Update.pm: ------------------------------------------------------- 18 use LWP::UserAgent; ------------------------------------------------------- and perl-libwww-perl provides perl(LWP::UserAgent). The binary rpm name and virtual provides names the rpm actually provides is not the same, and using virtual provides/obsoletes list based on what perl module is acually used is much better. > 3. The po/gettext files contain the line: "This file is distributed under the > same license as the ClamTk package." As they are submitted with ClamTk, do > they all have to have full license statements, or does this suffice? - This is sufficient > 4. Due to time constraints, I will likely not be able to review/sponsor other > packages. I am always happy to help; however, my time is limited to either > development or $something_else. I hope this is not a blocker. - Unfortunately I won't sponsor anyone in need of sponsorship unless he/she submits another review request or does at least one pre-review of other person's review request . If you are not going to do so for now, I once withdraw reviewing this package so that you can find another sponsor candidate for you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review